Standing Committee F

[Mr. David Amess in the Chair]

Employment Bill

David Amess: Order. I shall begin by making an announcement about the amendments: originally, amendment No. 218 was grouped with amendment No. 227 on the selection list, but I have decided that it is appropriate to take amendment No. 218 on its own, which means that amendment No. 227 will follow later.Clause 42 Equal pay: questionnaires

Clause 42 - Equal pay: questionnaires

Philip Hammond: Good morning, Mr. Amess. I beg to move amendment No. 217, in page 44, line 8, at end insert—
'(3A) Information received by a complainant in response to a form served on a respondent as prescribed in subsection (2) above shall be treated as confidential by the complainant and shall be used by the complainant only in relation to proceedings before an employment tribunal or an employment appeals tribunal.'.
 We move on to part 4 of the Bill, which is misleadingly entitled, ''Miscellaneous and general''. That suggests that it contains odds and ends that do not require serious attention, but it actually contains some of the most contentious issues with which the Committee must deal. I am glad to say, however, that clause 42 is not such a headline issue. 
 Amendment No. 217, which seeks to insert an obligation of confidentiality on the recipient of information obtained under the questionnaire procedure into new section 7B, is intended to probe the Government on how they intend to deal with that issue, which, although it is not a matter of philosophical difference, is important. 
 Clause 42 proposes that an employee who considers that she may have a claim under the relevant section would be able to demand information from her employer, the respondent, who would be obliged to reply. Interestingly, the clause specifies ''she'', so there may be a presumption that it would be a female employee who would think that there might be a claim under the sex discrimination section. If the respondent failed to reply, a tribunal would be able to draw an inference from that failure, which would clearly be an unfavourable one. 
 The principal substantive concern expressed by employers about the principle behind the clause is that it might be used for what are known as ''fishing expeditions''. There is no limit on a complainant's ability to serve such questionnaires, and there is no limit on the questions that could be asked. That will be a method for uncovering information, although it may be that the information is demanded for the legitimate and wholly genuine purpose of dealing with a perceived case of unlawful discrimination. 
 The Minister would agree that this is not the place to get into a debate about the rights and wrongs of the current state of discrimination legislation. The point is that we have a body of discrimination legislation, and the clause addresses a practical point about how to pursue a case under it. It is possible that the legislation would be used properly, but it is also possible, and this does not take a great stretch of the imagination, that it would be used maliciously, improperly or abusively, and, most relevantly to the amendment, it could be used to uncover information that would normally be regarded as confidential. 
 It would be possible to find out how much another person in the workplace was being paid, and under what conditions they were employed. That information is usually regarded as confidential, and it is certainly sensitive. Of course, it may be germane to whether a person is being unlawfully discriminated against, but the Minister will concede that people in a given workplace are in many cases paid differently with no suggestion of unlawful discrimination. I admit that the point is less likely to apply in a traditional industry, where people stand next to each other on a production line, but it certainly applies in many office environments and high-tech industries, where, in effect, pay and conditions are negotiated in a manner that reflects individual skills and talents. 
 The problem is that the information obtained through the questionnaire will, in many cases, be highly sensitive. The amendment cannot achieve the whole of my objective—to prevent disclosure of that information, except in a specific case of sexual discrimination—but it would impose a duty of confidentiality on the recipient of the information. I expect that the Minister intends to impose just such a duty in regulations, but as the matter is of great importance, relating as it does to a person's fundamental right to privacy in their affairs, it must be dealt with not merely through regulations but in the Bill. 
 The Minister may also wish to address a broader problem. Even if his regulations impose a duty of confidentiality on the recipient of the information, damage will still have been done. As another person in the workplace, the recipient will have become privy to information normally considered confidential. I accept that the point does not apply to those who work in an industry where one's pay, conditions and terms of employment are publicly known, and one has a recognised, publicly acknowledged grade. I invite the Committee to consider, however, that for the person whose pay and conditions are negotiated individually, such information is as private and personal to him as are his medical records. Including in legislation a provision that gives a colleague whom he perhaps does not know, or who has a personal vendetta against him—it could even be a spouse who works in the same workplace—the statutory right to find out such confidential details could be dangerous and damaging. 
 I hope that the Minister will take on board the specific proposal in the amendment, but can he also say how he intends to protect the privacy of employees against the wider damage that I have just outlined?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman said that he does not consider this matter an important one of principle. However, when the former Department for Education and Employment consulted on it in December 2000, 90 per cent. of respondents, including many businesses, accepted the need to establish the same facilities for equal pay questionnaires as exist in other areas relating to discrimination.
 Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that the provision uses ''she''. That is indeed a small step forward for progressives. For years, legislation has been framed using male gender when it applied to both sexes. I confirm that the clause applies to both sexes, but ''she'' is used to mean both, as it is in sex discrimination legislation. The clause is one small step forward for womankind. 
 The amendment requires that all information provided in response to the questionnaire would be treated as confidential and could be used by the complainant only to take a case to tribunal. The hon. Gentleman said that his was a probing amendment, which is just as well, because it is technically deficient. If an individual wanted to take the case to a higher court—for instance, the European Court of Justice—he or she should not be prevented from relying on that information in such a court. 
 We know that the absence of transparency on pay information contributes to and perpetuates the gender pay gap. The purpose of introducing a questionnaire procedure is to formalise the drive to transparency by providing a route to obtaining information about relevant issues, such as details of pay schemes and job grading systems, and about the way in which skills and experience are reflected in the company's pay system. 
 We understand that there may be concerns about disclosing details of an individual's pay. The questionnaire will not alter any duty of confidence that all employers owe to their employees. The questionnaire may be simply a vexatious fishing expedition. At present such fishing expeditions take place in a full-blown employment tribunal. We want to head off employment tribunal cases by giving better and more transparent information at an early stage.

Philip Hammond: Is the Minister saying that where an employer is asked questions about an individual employee, thus being invited to breach his duty of confidentiality to that employee, his failure to respond could not give rise to a negative inference by the tribunal, as the Bill suggests would happen when an employer fails properly to reply to a questionnaire?

Alan Johnson: It is highly likely that a tribunal would look at that in such a way. Employees can say to the employer, ''I don't want details of my pay to be given to anybody else.'' We will not cater for that situation in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but will point out in the regulations that the public interest test means that confidential information will not be disclosed unless it is germane to sex discrimination, because that is inherent in the common law of duty of confidentiality.
 If an individual asked the employer not to give such information, the employer would take that seriously. 
 Nevertheless, where he believes it is a public interest case, the employer could still disclose the information. It is a matter for his judgment. If an employee asked about the pay of someone in a different grade doing different work who could not possibly be compared to him—making a fishing expedition just to find out how much the colleague earned, in other words—the employer could confidently say that no public interest was involved and refuse to provide the information.

Philip Hammond: Let me be clear. The Minister is saying that that is a matter for the employer's judgment, but that puts the employer in an invidious position. The Minister apparently envisages that if the employer calls that judgment wrongly, the tribunal could draw a negative inference in a hearing. That places on the employer a heavy burden that he should not have to face when juggling statutory obligations and a duty of confidentiality to employees.

Alan Johnson: That is the procedure in sex discrimination law. The problem is that at present people have to use the sex discrimination regulations to address a problem of equal pay. These issues have been tested previously. The tribunal might be asked to consider whether any inferences should be drawn from the employer's failure to answer the question. The failure would probably not be unreasonable, provided that he or she had at least approached the colleague and asked whether he could disclose the information. A duty is being placed on employers, who must make a judgment, but it will be the same judgment that is made in sex discrimination cases. The issues are the same; we are merely trying to sort them out earlier, rather than through a full-blown employment tribunal.

Philip Hammond: The Minister has just second-guessed what a tribunal might consider reasonable or unreasonable. Will that be laid down in regulations or guidance, or is it just the feeling his officials have given him off the top of their heads? Is there any substance to the guidance that he has just given the Committee, and can he reassure us that tribunals will behave like that?

Alan Johnson: The common law duty of confidentiality guides all discrimination cases—sex and race cases under Labour legislation and disability cases under Conservative legislation. There is a fair amount of experience in other areas. Of course, a tribunal can order disclosure of information if the case proceeds formally. That is exactly the same as the position in existing discrimination law questionnaires in the three areas that I have mentioned.
 In each of those cases, the employer might be asked to provide information subject to a common law duty of confidentiality. He or she must consider whether it is appropriate to disclose that information. If the employer is not prepared to disclose it, the tribunal can, and does, decide whether it is in the interests of justice for it to be disclosed. I reassure the Committee that that system works well in other fields of discrimination.

Philip Hammond: I understand that, and the provision is beginning to make some sense, but I am concerned about the tribunal's power to draw any inference that it thinks fit from the employer's refusal to answer a questionnaire. If I have understood the Minister correctly, the questionnaire will be served and the employer may or may not respond to it. If he does not, the next stage is that the tribunal decides whether the information ought to be disclosed, and if it requires it to be disclosed, it will be.
 That seems to render redundant the provision that the tribunal may draw what inference it wishes. The Minister appears to be saying that, whether or not the employer responds to the questionnaire, the matter will ultimately and properly be dealt with by the tribunal. No inference is therefore required.

Alan Johnson: I was not saying that. At the moment, that happens at an employment tribunal. Under the new system, the employer will be able to provide that information to reassure an employee and avoid a case going to a full-blown employment tribunal. That is exactly the same as the position for other areas of discrimination legislation. The amendment, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, would not prevent information being passed on. The amendment deals with the confidentiality of the employee who receives that information.
 The employer must judge whether an individual is on a fishing expedition. It is entirely within the employer's remit to decide whether to give the information. He or she will have to decide whether the employee is still disgruntled and believes that there is a case of discrimination on equal pay grounds. In that case, he or she could end up in front of a tribunal. The tribunal will make the decision, and I cannot second-guess tribunals' decisions, which will depend on all the complex issues in the case. 
 The tribunal can order the information to be disclosed if it thinks it necessary. If the individual is not prepared to disclose it, the tribunal can, and does, decide whether it is in the interests of justice for it to be disclosed. The system works well in other fields of discrimination. In any event, if confidential information is provided as a result, for example, of a questionnaire and when an employer has decided that that is in the public interest, a common law duty of confidentiality may arise. That is to say, the woman would receive the information in circumstances that would impose a duty of confidence on her. She would be able to use it only for the purposes for which it was given to her. 
 Much information provided will not be confidential—the hon. Gentleman made a good point about sectors—and in the majority of cases it will be such things as details of pay schemes, job grading systems and how skills and experience are reflected in the employer's pay system. The amendment would impose a duty of confidentiality on all information disclosed, which is unnecessary and undesirable. It could not be shared with organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, citizens advice bureaux or trade unions when there may be good reason to do so. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a vote because I fear that it would encourage people to go to tribunals, which have the power to order disclosure of information without an automatic duty of confidence. That is the opposite of our aim of settling disputes in the workplace. I hope that that explanation will encourage the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: This is not the most pressing issue before us, but I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. I am surprised to hear a Minister who is invited to include specific provisions in a Bill, or in regulations, say that good old common law may do the job instead. That is not, in my experience, the usual approach taken by Ministers. They usually want the law to be codified in secondary rather than primary legislation.
 I freely acknowledge the Minister's criticism of the drafting of the amendment. I included employment appeals tribunals, but erroneously did not include higher courts. The Minister drew attention to the fact that information disclosed in response to a questionnaire will contain much that is not confidential, so I must also confess to having failed to include a public domain exclusion from the scope of the confidentiality that I seek. An effective amendment would allow its use throughout the judicial process and would exclude information already in the public domain other than by the recipient's breach of confidentiality. 
 I do not accept entirely the Minister's assurances. I am sure that he is right that in the vast majority of cases and most of those in which sex discrimination matters are likely to arise, the information will concern grading and disclosed semi-public information that is generic rather than specific. I am, however, worried about the sort of workplace that I described in which contracts are genuinely negotiated individually, which is probably the norm rather than the exception in small, white-collar businesses. 
 I accept that the amendment is defective and would not achieve what I seek. I give notice that I shall table a more effective amendment on Report, perhaps tailored more specifically to the sort of cases that I have in mind, because I want to press the Minister further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Union learning representatives

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 216 in page 45, line 8, leave out
'permit an employee of his'
 and insert 
', in respect of each establishment or bargaining unit (whichever is the smaller) in which he has employees, permit one employee'.

David Amess: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 198, in page 45, line 8, leave out 'an employee of his' and insert
'one employee of his per bargaining unit or establishment whichever is the smaller.'.

Philip Hammond: We now come to one of the more controversial matters in the Bill and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills. I see that the Minister for Employment and the Regions has beaten a hasty retreat, and who can blame him when we come to less consensual and agreeable matters?
 I hope that we shall have a stand part debate on the clause. One difficulty of Standing Committee procedure is that when there is a principled objection to a clause, the principle must largely be dealt with after debate on the minute detail of amendments. None the less, I will outline the Opposition's approach to the totality of clause 43, before addressing the specifics of amendment No. 216. 
 We unequivocally support collaboration between employers, workers and trade unions to secure proper training and learning in the workplace. In general, training is one of the great success stories of co-operation in British industry. In many cases, unions and employer work well together and the agenda is largely consensual. There are many examples of effective collaborative relationships in training between employers and unions. No one denies the benefits of training, or the role that trade union learning representatives play in workplaces. Apparently, there are about 3,000 trade union learning reps and, because schemes are not statutory and reps are there by virtue of agreement between employers and employees, one assumes that in most cases they are an effective and important part of the company's overall training programme.

Brian Cotter: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue that line, but to save me from saying this in my speech, I would like to say that training is a key issue at the moment because we see a great lack of skills throughout the country. We equally support the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. His amendment, No. 198, seeks to achieve a similar objective to amendment No. 216. We are talking about general principles. The key issue is that trade union learning reps can play a valuable and important role in appropriate circumstances. It is self-evident that appropriate circumstances are those in which relationships between the union, work force and management are such that union learning reps can be an effective part of an overall training programme. It is not clear that it would be good to impose an ideal situation by statute on a sub-ideal working environment. No doubt the Minister could take hon. Members to dozens of companies to show them union learning reps in action as an integral and effective part of company training programmes, but that does not mean that imposing such a model on a business in which relationships between management and unions are adversarial—harking back to the old days—would achieve the same benefits.

Mark Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems odd that the clause has found its way into the Bill, bearing in mind the view that the Minister for Employment and the
 Regions has stated on previous clauses that the Bill is consensual and finds a middle road? This clause veers towards the left-hand side of the curve of that road.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right, but the danger is greater than that: arrangements that work perfectly well and deliver good results may be put at risk by the intervention of statutory provisions and may undermine what happens in practice. One size does not fit all. Different employers will have different approaches to training. Many employers operate mentoring schemes, for example. The imposition of a statutory right to paid time off for trade union learning reps will change the geometry of that relationship by introducing into the equation the generally unhelpful influence of statutory provision and regulations.

George Osborne: Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), is it not striking that this provision is the one that employers' federations, such as the Confederation of British Industry, are most strongly opposed to? Although they had questions about the details of some of the earlier parts of the Bill, they gave broad support to much of it. Their real concern has been about this part of the Bill, which reinforces my hon. Friend's point about the non-consensual nature of these provisions.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right and he leads me to an important point. He says that employers' organisations have been opposed to this part of the Bill; let me explain what happened. I think that I am right in saying that when they thought, as the consultation led them to think, that they were being invited to endorse a statutory framework for trade union learning reps, where those learning reps were appointed by agreement between the employer and the employee, the majority of them were comfortable with that arrangement. They did not understand at that stage of the consultation that the Government were proposing to introduce a unilateral right for trade unions to impose union learning reps on a workplace. That is what the majority of employer organisations find extremely difficult to contemplate.
 On that point, the Trades Union Congress brief for today's debate says that 
''the Government completed its consultation exercise on the TUC's proposal to put Union Learning Representatives on a statutory footing''.
 There is no suggestion there that the proposal is the Government's brilliant idea: it is something that the bosses in Congress house or Transport house, or whatever it is called, have told the Government to put into the Bill. The brief continues: 
''The consultation revealed overwhelming support for the principle.''
 The Engineering Employers Federation's brief for the same debate says: 
''Union Learning Representatives (Clause 43)—This proposal has been opposed by all employer bodies''.
 There seems to be a slight discrepancy there. 
 There were 89 responses to the consultation. It would be useful if the Minister, instead of listing every one, would tell the Committee, by broad category, who those respondents were. It may be true, as the TUC says, that the consultation revealed overwhelming support for the principle—that is, the support of a large majority of the respondents—whereas, as the EEF says, the proposal is opposed by all employer bodies. That could easily be the case if the majority of respondents were trade unions. It would help if the Minister would clarify that later. 
 It must also be said that the framing of the clause and the way in which the Government seek to proceed betray their view of industry. The clause appears to suggest that training will be done and employees will be informed about their training needs and have their training needs analysed only if trade unions become involved, if appointed or elected representatives—or perhaps not properly qualified representatives; we shall come to that issue later—are involved in the process. The Bill glosses over the fact that many good employers have large, expensive and elaborate professional training management structures in their companies, and it does not address the way in which trade union learning reps slot into the existing organisation. There is a world of difference between a workplace in which an employer has no effective training or mentoring arrangements, where a union learning rep might be introducing employees for the first time to some of the training opportunities available to them, and a workplace that is committed to the training and empowerment through learning of its work force. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me, and acknowledge that the computer company IBM is a fine example of such a company. It happens to be based in my constituency, so I achieve a double objective by using it as an example. 
 That company has an elaborate and exemplary system of training and retraining members of its work force so that, as its business changes, they can re-learn appropriate skills and be redeployed within the business wherever possible. They can thus expand their skill base and improve their earnings potential within the business. That training is always, rightly, focused on the needs of the business. Employer-financed and employer-based training will and should be focused on the needs of the employer's business and designed to give the employee an opportunity to advance his position and enhance his deployable skills within that business. 
 There is no acknowledgment at all in the clause of the role of employers and management structures. There is no requirement for union learning reps to work within an established structure of training and learning in the workplace. In fact, there are no constraints at all in the Bill. The Minister might tell us of some that will be introduced in guidance.

Mark Simmonds: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this part of the Bill there is no specific provision stating that the training that must be undertaken under the aegis of the trade union training representative must be relevant to the particular business of the employee and employer? That might be very pertinent, especially in IBM.

Philip Hammond: Certainly that is true. One commentator on the Bill has observed that it contains absolutely nothing at all to prevent a union learning rep from promoting to employees courses in modern Marxism, if such a thing still exists. No doubt the Minister will tell us that the guidance that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service will issue will focus on defining training so as to eliminate such an extreme abuse of the process, but my hon. Friend raised a good point. It is not clear that the question will be dealt with of whether the training paid for by the employer that the union learning reps will promote will be relevant to the business of the employer—or at least to the industry in which the employer is engaged—or whether they could promote the advantages of retraining to an employee, giving them the goal of exiting that business, which the employer would regard as wholly negative.

George Osborne: Might a union learning representative train a work force in such things as telephone canvassing or leaflet delivery techniques? I know that a lot of union members take part in such activities once every four or five years.

Philip Hammond: That is an interesting thought that had not occurred even to my devious and cynical mind. No doubt the Minister will be able to set my hon. Friend's mind at rest—at least, I hope that he will—on that point, if not on others, when he talks about the intended guidance.

Rob Marris: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to line 17 on page 46, where subsection (8) talks about
''reasonable in all the circumstances''?
 I do not think that the things that he and his hon. Friends have suggested would be considered reasonable in all circumstances by an employment tribunal, to which the matter might be referred under subsection (9).

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman reads on, he will find that subsection (8) says
''reasonable in all the circumstances having regard to any relevant provision of a Code of Practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.''
 Let us leave out the extreme case of the course in modern Marxism, and talk about an employee working as a technician at Johnson Motors of Hull, to use the example that we have used before. The Minister for Employment and the Regions, told us earlier that there are no longer mechanics in the motor repair industry. They are all technicians, so this employee is working as a technician. For someone to enhance his skills as a technician, perhaps through computer training, because much of what car technicians do these days is computer based, is very different from undertaking training designed to offer them a completely different avenue of employment. That might be beneficial to the individual; I do not disagree that an individual might find it in his interests to broaden his horizons and look to deploy his skills beyond the industry in which he currently works, but I am not persuaded that it is reasonable to expect the employer actively to finance and support that. 
 Good employers will seek to enhance the skills and upgrade the capabilities of those who work for them. It would stretch a point to say that an employer had to want actively to engage in helping employees to go and work elsewhere if he were to qualify as a good employer. A good employer should seek to retain his employees, and one way to do that in a competitive labour market is to help them to upgrade their skills so that they can find a path through the business in which they are employed that enables them to gain ever-higher earnings and greater job satisfaction.

Kevin Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not mean deliberately to mislead the Committee, but he is suggesting that union members who take training will be given paid time off work to do it. That is not how I read the Bill. It suggests that a union representative whose responsibility is learning and training will be given time off work to encourage his colleagues to take further training and education. What frightens the hon. Gentleman about ordinary workers having more training and further education?

Philip Hammond: Nothing at all. I am all in favour of training and education, but if it is to be workplace-focused, with employers footing the bill for the learning reps to go about their specified business, it should be relevant to that workplace.

Kevin Hughes: Why does it have to be focused on a particular workplace? The trade union rep with the responsibility will be given the time off, not the worker who engages in further training or education. That training might well be done outside working hours. Surely, it can only be for the long-term good of the British economy if anyone engages in further training and education. What is the problem?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes the point that education and training, in general, are a public as well as a private good. It is for the good of society that people are educated as far as is practical. I do not disagree, but that takes us back to the debate about who should foot the bill for things that are a general, rather than a specific, good?
 The briefing from the Department of Trade and Industry and the explanatory notes to the Bill say that the Government's support for the clause is based on the claim that it will be good for employers. That implies that employers should be happy about it, because it will be positive for them. The regulatory impact assessment suggests that employers will achieve a monetary benefit that exceeds the monetary cost. If the Government want to take that line, they must acknowledge that the training that union learning reps will encourage must be focused on improving the skills of employees for the business in which they are engaged.

Kevin Hughes: Not necessarily.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I ask him to consider the matter from the point of view of an employer who must pay a union learning rep to tell his employees, during the time for which he is paying, ''This place stinks; the best thing you can do is to go to evening classes, learn a skill and
 go and work down the road.'' I suggest that that is not in the employer's interest. A responsible employer will try to provide opportunities and a clear path of training and skill enhancement to enable people to see a route for themselves in the organisation.

Joan Humble: The hon. Gentleman talks about responsible employers and he talked earlier about employers who have facilities available to deliver training and support for their staff. Many small employers do not have such facilities, however, and they value the expertise of trade union representatives in their organisations, especially concerning matters such as health and safety, because they do not always have time to keep up with legislation. They work in partnership with those trade union representatives. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Bill provides an opportunity for employer and employee to work in partnership to enhance the product that the business delivers?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I know someone who runs a small business and has a friend who is a Transport and General Workers Union official. That employer does not bother to subscribe to any of the expensive books about employment law because he meets the union guy down at the pub and receives better advice on how to manage that aspect of his business than he would from reading expensive subscription publications. None the less, the point that underpins our position with the clause is that that relationship cannot be imposed constructively by statute.

Joan Humble: Why not?

Philip Hammond: Good relationships cannot be imposed by statute. When a working relationship is good and unions and employers are working well together, union learning reps will make a valuable contribution to the overall training and skilling effort. However, in some businesses management and unions are in an adversarial relationship—the Minister for Employment and the Regions has left the Committee, so I can risk using the Post Office as an example. I have grave doubts about whether the positive benefits of good employer-union relationships can be achieved by imposition by statute in, since we are discussing environments in which there is already union recognition—unionised environments.
 The numbers are interesting. Some 3,000 union learning reps are in place. It is estimated that there will be 22,000 in eight years time if the Bill is enacted. That is a substantial increase and suggests, not surprisingly, that paid time off work will be taken in most cases in which it is available. That does not suggest, at least to me, that we shall automatically achieve in those additional 19,000 workplaces the benefits that have been achieved in the 3,000 workplaces where union learning reps have been recognised by free agreement between employer and employee. 
 I must move on to the specific details of the amendment, Mr. Amess, or I shall try your patience too far. 
 We have a principled objection to the imposition by statute of trade union learning reps without the agreement of the employer. One of our concerns is that we may damage some of the existing good relationships and such imposition by statute is in no-one's interest. Employers will voluntarily agree to the appointment of union learning reps if they believe it will work, if the environment is sufficiently positive that a rep's contribution is likely to be positive, and if the reps will deliver the kind of benefits and gain to employers that the Government's explanation suggests. If, as the Government suggest, it will all be to their benefit, why would they not do so? The only people who have an interest in imposing union learning reps by statute are those in trade unions who seek to build empires comprised of many officials whose time off work is paid for by employers. 
 The amendment seeks to limit the number of union learning reps that can be appointed. As I said earlier, we are in the curious position of objecting to the principle, and I shall object to it again in the clause stand part debate.

Ian Pearson: You have done that.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) says that I have objected already, but I shall do it again in the clause stand part debate.

Ian Pearson: You shouldn't need one.

David Amess: Order. I shall decide whether there will be a clause stand part debate.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I should not second-guess whether there will be a clause stand part debate, but the sentiments that I have expressed will inform any such debate, and they will inform my hon. Friends in deciding how to vote on the clause when the question is put.
 I assume that the Government going to be intransigent—Back Benchers have their orders and are unlikely to have much flexibility in how they proceed—but we have tabled a series of pragmatic amendments that would clarify the scope of the measure and deal with the more obvious dangers that employer organisations have identified. 
 The first danger is addressed in amendment No. 216, which relates to the number of learning representatives. It simply suggests that there will be one learning representative 
''in respect of each establishment or bargaining unit (whichever is the smaller)''.
 That is not a perfect definition, but it is an attempt to elicit some reassurance from the Minister. 
 It may be that the limit would be better expressed in terms of one union learning rep for so many hundred employees. I do not know, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. It cannot be that an employee appointed as a union learning rep will have his time off work for those activities paid for by the employer. The ACAS non-statutory guidance code will be relevant in determining how much time off work is appropriate in the circumstances, and it is accepted that that may work, but it is unclear whether 
 there will be binding guidance or regulations to specify the maximum number of learning reps. 
 I assume that the Minister does not contemplate that 35 learning reps would be appointed in a workplace of 55 people, but it is unclear how he intends to address that.

Mark Simmonds: Has my hon. Friend thought through another issue that may arise in a small business with a small number of employees who may all belong to different trade unions? In theory, if five employees were represented by five different trade unions, they could all be trade union learning representatives.

Philip Hammond: My understanding is that that would be the case. If five trade unions were recognised in a workplace, all five would have the right to appoint learning reps because there is no numerical limit in the Bill. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
 I should conclude and allow the Minister to speak. I am sure that other members of the Committee will also want to address the problem. However, it would help if we heard first how the Minister intends to deal with the mischief that I suggest will arise.

Brian Cotter: I wish to speak to amendment No. 198, which is very much in line with amendment No. 216. Unquestionably, trade is vital for firms, industries and the country as a whole.
 Tourism is relevant to my constituency. More and more people are saying that we must raise the quality of tourist facilities and staff. Incidentally, the minimum wage, which was mentioned previously, is relevant, because it makes employees feel that their job is worth while. Many people, particularly in tourism, have not been paid a high rate, but now that rates of pay are generally higher, training is seen to be part and parcel of the job. 
 That is why I want to correct what I am sure was a misapprehension on the Minister's part when he seemed to imply at an earlier sitting that Liberal Democrat Members were not behind the minimum wage. I slaved for many hours on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. We simply proposed a different way to tackle it, which was to have a regional minimum wage, but we accepted the principle and led the way, when the Government dragged their feet in saying that the Low Pay Commission's recommendations should be adopted. However, that slight departure from the matter before us is not a departure, in the sense that if employees are paid a reasonable rate, they see the merits of training, as do employers. 
 It is important to establish, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, that things should be done in partnership as much as possible. Only in partnership does one achieve the best results. Hon. Members have discussed whether training should be relevant to a business and acceptable to both sides of industry. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about people being trained, then rushing off down the road to work elsewhere. Of course that is a 
 concern, but we must deal with it. The fact that people will have training and then rush down the road to another job is not a reason discourage training.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is impossible to anchor people. Once they are trained, they may well go and work for another employer. My point was merely that training should be relevant to the workplace. That does not preclude a person who has gained the relevant skill or qualification from moving to another employer.

Brian Cotter: That point is well made and well taken. If an employee working in a certain industry asks the employer for training in a totally different industry, clearly the employer would not be happy about that.
 There is concern that the Bill implies a right to appoint an unlimited number of learning representatives. By any standards, that would not be satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman suggested that they might increase from the current 3,000 to 22,000. The figure could be even more—who is to say? The amendment is intended to tease out the issue. We cannot have an unlimited increase. It would be of no use to employees or employers if great numbers of people were involved in training or advising on training.

George Osborne: There is an extraordinary aspect of the partial regulatory impact assessment produced by the Department. It states:
''Plainly, there is scope under these proposals for the number of ULRs to expand significantly. However, there is no reason to believe that a sharp increase in their numbers would actually occur.''
 It then quotes the TUC estimate that suggests that there will be a rise from 3,000 to 22,387 in eight years, which implies a massive explosion in their numbers.

Brian Cotter: Yes. Clearly the Minister has something to address.
 Learning representatives do not have a right to bargain with the employer effectively or an assurance that the Bill intends to assign any new rights to bargain over the contents of training. That is a departure from the previous situation. Telephone canvassing has been referred to, and there is certainly a case for proper training in that regard. At the general election, some erroneous statements were made in the course of telephone canvassing about myself and many others, but I shall gloss over that before I invite any comments. Training is necessary in all fields of activity. We could say that it is necessary for Members of Parliament, but it is best not to get into that argument either. 
 We are all concerned about training, and partnership is vital. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

John Healey: It is a pleasure to contribute to the scrutiny and passage of the Bill, having followed it for so long. My hon. Friend the
 Minister for Employment and the Regions has ably led the Committee's proceedings so far.
 It is a pleasure for me, as a long-standing member of the GMB union and the National Union of Journalists and a former employee of the TUC, to be able to deal with a clause that reinforces the positive role that trade unions play in the work force to increase training and to encourage employees to take advantage of it.

Philip Hammond: As a former employee of the TUC, will the Minister confirm the accuracy of the statement in the TUC briefing that it was the TUC's proposal to put union learning representatives on a statutory footing?

John Healey: I am delighted to do so. It is the Government's proposal, and was set out in our manifesto in June 2001. The TUC is one of the interest groups that is keen for it to be implemented, although it is not content with all aspects of our proposals.
 I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that this is one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, and even more disappointed—although not surprised—to hear his hon. Friends turn a serious subject into a ridiculous debate. I was also disappointed to hear that Conservative Members are opposed in principle to the clause. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to say that training is one of the collaborative success stories of United Kingdom industry and workplaces of recent years.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. Do hon. Members in constituency parties that receive sponsorship from trade unions need to declare an interest before they speak?

David Amess: It is up to individual hon. Members to decide what they do.

John Healey: As I was saying, training is one of the collaborative success stories of UK industry. The proposals will reinforce those efforts, while the amendments will undermine them.

Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the tone of the debate? He is making a sensible speech that emphasises the need for co-operation and partnership in industry. He knows that I am somewhat critical of industry for its failure to train; we still have a long way to go. However, the problem is no longer with employers, who accept the need for partnership, but with the modern Conservative party, which wants to paint the unions as a hostile force. Is not their contribution an astonishing introduction of conscience into the debate?

John Healey: My hon. Friend makes a telling point from a position of great experience and interest. I can only point out that Conservative Members are taking a position to the extreme right of even the Institute of Directors.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Minister because this is important. I have just quoted the TUC brief, which claims that the proposal was a TUC proposal, but the Minister has told me that that is wrong and that it is a Government proposal. He has
 said that our position is out of line with the IOD, so can I ask him about the EEF brief? That states:
''This proposal has been opposed by all employer bodies''.
 Is the Minister saying that that brief is incorrect?

John Healey: The EEF brief is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether the proposal was the TUC's policy. It is not. The proposal has been discussed with the TUC, but it is the Government's policy and the Government are introducing it. The Labour party set it out at the June election, after which the second term of Labour Government began, as he will vividly remember.
 The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) said that he supported the arguments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is therefore unclear whether the Liberals, too, are opposed in principle to the measures in the clause. Amendment No. 198 has an effect similar to that of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It would undermine the aim of clause, and it is completely unclear where the Liberals stand, which should surprise none of us.

Brian Cotter: My intervention actually supported the comments made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge on the importance of training. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) has a teased out an important point. It is perfectly clear where we stand: we want clarification, and we see both sides of industry playing a part. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that management has a very strong part to play and does not always come up to the mark. We are considering the matter in a reasonable, balanced way and would like answers and clarification.

John Healey: As usual, that is as clear as mud. In contrast, my hon. Friends can see the value of the Government's proposals.

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members would take a different view if, like me, they had been involved in trade union education and in encouraging education of people in the workplace? I was recently involved in awarding certificates to members of my own union who had made great achievements on education courses in the east midlands, and previously in Northern Ireland. Opposition Members might take a different view if they understood the difficulties involved, the work that union representatives must do with employers to organise the courses and the amount of work needed to motivate people at the workplace to take part in education. They might take a different view if they had first-hand experience from talking to some of the employees who had benefited from those courses.

John Healey: My hon. Friend speaks from her great experience before and since being elected to the House.
 I shall respond first to some of the general points made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and then turn to the specifics. The first general point was his last, when he seemed to suggest the possibility, if the Bill is passed, of a huge increase in the number of union learning reps, a point echoed 
 by the Liberals, who described it as an unlimited increase. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) looked forward to what he described as a massive explosion of union learning reps. The regulatory impact assessment expects there to be just over 22,000 union learning reps after eight years from a current base of 3,250. That is a gradual development over eight years. It may help to put matters in perspective for hon. Members if I say that unions are recognised in about 80,000 workplaces, so even after eight years, only one in four is likely to have union learning reps recognised and active. The suggestion that a hugely exploited clause could produce a huge explosion of new trade union learning reps is far from the mark. If anything, once we pass the Bill we shall need to consider how to boost and reinforce that gradual development.

George Osborne: The figures that the Minister has just given represent an increase of 700 per cent. in union learning representatives. When Opposition Members talk about a substantial or huge increase, they are right.

John Healey: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that union learning reps are relatively new in Britain's workplaces. The first were appointed and started working only about four years ago, so the base is low, and figures of the sort that he offers are not helpful. One can cut the figures any way one likes. One could describe matters as the hon. Gentleman has, but the impact assessment suggests that, even after eight years, only one in four of the workplaces where unions are recognised is likely to have an operational union learning rep.
 The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare was concerned that the clause would create new rights for trade unions to bargain over training. I suggest that he reads, if he has not done so already, the consultation document that we published last year. We made it clear in that document, we have made it clear in policy statements since and we have deliberately drafted the clause to make it clear that the provision creates no new rights for trade unions to bargain over training. We may return to that point in later debates, but I hope that that is clear. 
 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the consultation and the responses to it. There were 89 responses. The split was as follows: 16 were from employers or employer representative organisations, 46 were from representative bodies, including unions and employer bodies, nine were from union learning reps themselves, five were from employees and 13 were from others, such as learning and skills councils. The hon. Gentleman might wish to refer to those results, which we have published and placed in the House of Commons Library.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, but in fact I have the results somewhere in the pile of paper in front of me. I think that he inadvertently referred twice—in the figures of 16 and of 46—to employer representative organisations. One hesitates to talk in terms of sides of industry, but can he say how many of those responses came from
 employers or their representatives, and from employees or their representatives?

John Healey: By all means. As I think I said at the outset, there were 16 responses: from employers such as Lloyds TSB, Corus, Tesco and Thames Water, or from representative bodies such as the Engineering Employers Federation, the IOD and the Confederation of British Industry. The remaining responses were from other types of organisations or individuals.

George Osborne: The hon. Gentleman said that 16 employers or employer organisations took part in the consultation, but will he address the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge by saying how many supported the clause?

John Healey: Views were mixed, but I can give the hon. Gentleman a flavour. Some were not supportive, but he may be surprised to learn that some were. Question 3 of the consultation asked:
''Do you agree with the proposed entitlements for union learning representatives?'',
 to which the Institute of Directors' response was, ''Yes''. In paragraph 19 of its response to the consultation, the CBI states that it 
''accepts that learning representatives should be entitled to reasonable time off.''

Philip Hammond: I should put those remarks in context by pointing out that, at the time of responding to the consultation, it was not clear to those organisations that they were being asked to endorse paid time off for learning reps who are appointed without the agreement of their employers. Indeed, in a meeting earlier this week the CBI told me that, at the time of consultation, it was unaware that the Government intended to apply these terms to learning reps without the agreement of employers.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman has moved on to the issue that I was about to address. He suggests that the CBI is taken aback by the idea that trade union learning reps might be appointed by trade unions, and that we in some way hid that fact. That is plain wrong, and I suggest that he examines our response to question 6 of last year's consultation paper, which states:
''The Government believes that learning representatives should only be placed on a statutory basis in workplaces where independent unions are recognised for collective bargaining purposes. In such workplaces, the right to appoint learning representatives will be limited only to those independent unions that are recognised for collective bargaining purposes.''
 I do not believe that that could be much clearer. Indeed, as with other matters, we consulted on that point with an entirely open mind. As the consultation reminds us: 
''This is broadly consistent with the way existing time off for union duties is treated under the law.''

Brian Cotter: We need clarification on this point. Is the Under-Secretary saying that the Bill does not imply a right for unions to appoint an unlimited number of learning representatives without the
 employer's agreement? My concern is that the Bill offers insufficient definition in that regard.

John Healey: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, my remarks will follow the same format as those of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. I shall deal first with the general points and then turn to the amendments, including the one that he tabled.

Philip Hammond: Employer representatives told me that they did not understand at the time that the Government were proposing that learning reps could be imposed where there was no agreement between employer and unions. Their comments must be seen in that light.
 The Minister cited in his defence question 6 of the consultation. However, that paragraph clearly emphasises not what he suggests, but that learning reps will be appointed only where trade unions are recognised and will be appointed by the unions. Read in its entirety, the paragraph does not suggest that people should understand it to mean that the Government proposed to depart from the existing practice whereby the ability of a union to appoint learning reps is by agreement with the employer in the workplace.

John Healey: Obviously, I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's conversations with employer representatives. I have explained what was in the consultation document that we published. The CBI made it clear in its response that it knew that this was a matter for debate. Paragraph 8 of the response states:
''The CBI strongly opposes the suggestion in the consultative document that a trade union should be given the right to appoint a learning representative without the employers' agreement.''
 It could not be clearer than that. 
 I must correct the hon. Gentleman on one matter. Existing practice does not give the employer a right to veto the appointment of trade union stewards and officials in the workplace—it is quite the opposite. The clause follows established practice.

Philip Hammond: In case anyone missed it, the Minister just shot a bullet straight through his own foot by confirming that the employer organisation that he cites as having been supportive made it explicitly clear in its response that it is opposed to provisions that would allow learning reps to be appointed in a situation where the employer is not in agreement.

John Healey: I must make it absolutely clear that the hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that nobody in the CBI realised that this matter was covered in the consultation document and something on which they should comment. The CBI took a view, and the Government, in light of the consultation responses and our own judgments, decided not to accept it.

Tony Lloyd: This is probably a rather unfair question, but can the Minister explain in which circumstances the Government would have gone out to consultation if it would have resulted only in a framework for an agreement between employer and employee? On that basis, the Bill would be unnecessary. The hypothesis put by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is farcical.

John Healey: The evidence from the experience of learning reps is that there are barriers to their being able to do their job because they do not have rights equivalent to those of other trade union officers in the workplace. I accept that the CBI and other employer interest groups may not fully agree with some aspects of the clause and the policy decisions that inform its drafting. The CBI does not agree with our refusal to allow employers to have a veto over who may act as a union learning rep. On the other hand, there are aspects that the trade unions are not entirely happy with. That is the nature of the decision-making process that the Government must go through.
 I am anxious to make progress, but I want to respond to a couple of general points before moving on to the amendments. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked how union learning reps would fit into existing professional, company-run training schemes. Experience to date suggests that they generally fit in very well. They do not replace, but reinforce and often complement what a company's human resources department or training department is doing. Our independent evaluation of the activities of union reps showed that learning reps work best and achieve most when companies such as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred are thoroughly committed to training. 
 I was asked whether union learning reps could provide advice to union members on learning needs that may not have a direct bearing on their work. That is possible. The general idea behind union learning reps is to encourage a learning culture, which should benefit everyone—individuals and businesses—in the longer term. It is worth bearing in mind that any training undertaken by a union member as a result of advice or encouragement from a union learning rep carries no obligation whatever for the employer to cover the cost. 
 The hon. Gentleman described amendments Nos. 216 and 198 as pragmatic. They seek to restrict the number of union learning reps who could benefit from the entitlement to time off. They would limit the number of union learning reps that a union could appoint in any workplace or bargaining unit. The restrictions are unnecessary and undesirable. 
 Under new section 168A(8), union learning reps are entitled to time off only when it is reasonable in all the circumstances, defined with reference to a code of practice and in relation to the employee, employer and business. That already places restrictions on unions seeking time off that is unlimited or would damage or disrupt the employer's business. An employer would be entitled to deny time off if a union sought an unreasonable amount of time off for union learning reps. Equally, an employer could argue under subsection (8) that time off was unreasonable if several union learning reps sought time off at the same time.

Philip Hammond: That addresses the question of whether an employee is entitled to a given period of time off and of a reasonableness test, which will be judged by reference to an ACAS code. That is fair and reasonable, but it does not address the question about the number of representatives. As I understand it, each
 representative will stand alone. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a union, in extremis, from appointing every member in a workplace as a learning rep, all of whom would be entitled to time off their duties, subject to the reasonableness test in subsection (8), which bites on a single employee's time off, not on the aggregate of employees' time off in that workplace.

John Healey: The purpose of the clause and our policy is to reinforce the role of union learning reps. The right to time off to undertake those duties must be reasonable in the circumstances that I have explained. The Bill already provides necessary protection for employers against disruption of their business, such as in the slightly extreme example cited by the hon. Gentleman. It does that without placing an explicit upper limit on the number of union learning reps. That is my first point: the amendments are unnecessary.
 The amendments are also undesirable, because restricting the number of union learning reps able to provide advice to employees would undermine the effectiveness of union learning rep support. If I read the amendment correctly, it would mean that a union could appoint just one union learning rep at a very large workplace or establishment that might have several thousand union members but only one bargaining unit. One size does not fit all, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said in his opening remarks, but the amendment would try to make it do just that.

Philip Hammond: Although I suspect that, sadly, the days of workplaces that were single establishments with 7,000 employees have mostly long since passed, will the Minister address the substantive point? I acknowledged that this form of words might not be the most appropriate to control numbers—perhaps an amendment should relate to the number of employees per union learning rep—but will he acknowledge that there is a case for limiting the numbers of union learning reps and of people who can be appointed as such? In persisting with the argument that it does not matter how many there are because, somehow, under the operation of subsection (8), their aggregate time off will be limited, he seems to be betraying the real agenda: to allow unions to appoint an unlimited number of officials entitled by statute to paid time off for their union work.

John Healey: No. I am arguing that to set an upper limit on union learning reps is unnecessary and undesirable and that it would, in effect, create a one-size-fits-all policy. Whether or not the workplace is several thousand strong, as I suggested in an example perhaps as extreme as some of those that the hon. Gentleman has cited, the principle is the same. In workplaces with a large number of employees in a single bargaining unit, it would place an intolerable burden on just one union learning rep to have to carry out those functions for such a large number of employees.
 Ironically, that approach might cause more problems than it solved for the employer. The same person, who might be a key worker, would always be seeking time off to undertake the union learning rep duties.

Mark Simmonds: Will the Minister answer the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge: why can there not be a per capita limit on the number of union training representatives in a particular business unit—perhaps one per 100 employees?

John Healey: I thought that I had answered that point, but if I was not clear, I will answer it by explaining that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge made the point himself when he said that one size does not fit all. Such a prescription would cause precisely the sort of problem that he was concerned about.
 Where there are several union learning reps, there is obviously more scope for one to stand in for a fellow rep who cannot be given time off for business reasons. In their responses to the consultation, employers recognised the realities of the situation. I again quote the Institute of Directors, which, when asked: 
''Do you agree that matters such as the number of members represented by a union learning representative should be left to the union to determine?'',
 once again answered, ''Yes''. 
 Placing tight numerical limits on union learning reps would create precisely the one-size-fits-all problem that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is keen to avoid, and would create the sort of inflexibility that no Committee member wishes to impose in the workplace. It would make it difficult for reps to specialise, for example, in providing certain categories of advice, geared to different groups in the work force. One can see that it will be much more efficient for one union learning rep to specialise in support for colleagues with literacy and numeracy difficulties while others look after the interests of graduates. To receive the best guidance, from an employee's point of view, it might be appropriate for a union to think of having more than one union learning rep. The amendments would prevent that. 
 The clause provides rights broadly equivalent to those currently enjoyed by shop stewards and other lay union representatives. As I explained earlier, there are no upper limits on the numbers of shop stewards that unions can appoint, and it will be left for them to decide. That approach has not created significant problems for employers, and there is no reason to believe that problems that have not arisen with shop stewards would arise in the case of union learning reps. The amendments are unnecessary and undesirable, and they would create inflexibility and complicate a system that has worked well in related areas of trade union law. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

George Osborne: I shall speak briefly about the clause before moving on to the specifics of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right: part 4 of the Bill contains, not innocent miscellaneous provisions, but a substantial extension of employment legislation to the detriment of employers, and a considerable extension to union power. I may be cynical, but it represents favours not fairness, and we know why. One favour deserves another, and we can imagine the conversation in May
 2001: ''You fund our election campaign and we will give you a load of new union powers.'' [Interruption.] There is muttering from Government Members—

Tony Lloyd: Laughter.

George Osborne: There is laughter from Government Members, but it is an extraordinary coincidence that trade unions provide millions of pounds to one political party, which introduces new union powers when it gets into office.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said, no one is against improving education and training for our population, and no one is against giving the least skilled people in our society basic literacy and numeracy skills. One of the best things that the Government have done is to introduce literacy and numeracy hours in primary schools. Lifelong learning and improving the skills of the adult population is another area that needs attention, but the question is whether we should force employers and companies to recognise yet another grade of trade union activist, which is how it is described in the Minister's Department's consultation paper. 
 Union learning representatives can perform a useful function where they work in conjunction with employers. That is spelt out in many responses to the consultation process, although I am concerned that the Library brief says that one of the principal functions that union learning representatives could perform would be to help employees to open individual learning accounts. Sadly, that is not a function that the union learning representative can perform in future, but perhaps representatives were helpful in helping people to open those accounts over the past few months.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the use that trade union learning reps have made in the past of individual learning accounts. They have managed to encourage many people whom our conventional training system had failed to reach and who had not learned for many years, such as older male workers, part-timers and people from ethnic minorities. The accounts were a useful tool for union learning reps and I hope that, when we are in a position to introduce a successor to the ILA scheme, they will use it.

George Osborne: I am happy to have a lengthy debate about the merits of the Government's ILA scheme because it has been universally praised and shown to be fraud-proof. It is a great shock that they have abolished it.
 On the substantive issues that we are debating, as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested, the clause has been almost universally opposed by employer organisations. The selective quotes that the Minister has provided have not convinced me that a single employer organisation supports the clause. That is a shame—the Minister has not been present for much of this Committee—because both Government and Opposition Members have broadly supported the Bill's measures. We have witnessed probing amendments and debates, and have divided, I think, on only one amendment so far. Broadly, we welcome reforms to employment 
 tribunals and adoption, and paternity and maternity leave and pay, although we never debated the maternity provisions. It is therefore a shame that we have entered controversial and stormy waters. 
 The Minister quoted the CBI response to consultation. As I read that response, it is absolutely clear. It states: 
''The CBI agrees that peer promotion of learning can add value but the proposal of a union right to appoint union learning representatives without the employers' agreement is a step in the wrong direction. The CBI believes that there should be partnership on training issues but partnership can only work where all partners are voluntarily engaged in that process.''
 It will be useful for the Committee to hear more specifics from the CBI. It believes that 
''union learning representatives can add values to the workplace learning when they work in partnership with employers; imposing learning representatives would not increase employer commitment to training; collective bargaining on training must not be imposed; the role of learning representatives should be clarified; union learning representatives should have a nationally recognised qualification; time off should be 'reasonable' and agreed by union and employer; normal practice and protections for union representatives should apply to learning representatives.''
 Some of the CBI's points are covered by later amendments.

John Healey: So that the Committee has the full picture, would the hon. Gentleman like to complete the quotes from the CBI's response? I, too, have quoted its strong opposition to unions' being able to appoint learning representatives and to employers' not being able to veto them. However, paragraph 19 states:
''The CBI accepts that learning representatives should be entitled to reasonable time off.''
 That lies at the heart of the clause. Paragraph 22 states that 
''there should be a right to unpaid time off for union members to consult with their learning representative'',
 which is another crucial part of the clause. Finally, paragraph 23 states: 
''The CBI agrees with the consultation document's proposals that the protection against discrimination and victimisation for union learning representatives should be similar to those of other union officials.''
 That is at the heart and core of the clause.

George Osborne: With great respect to the Minister, the CBI is saying that all those elements are good if union learning reps work in partnership with the employer. I imagine that good employers already provide time off. As we are trading quotes from CBI briefs, one spells out:
''Voluntary partnership lies at the heart of a good relationship. All the successful work of learning representatives so far relates to good relationships between employers and unions. Partnerships can only be effective where there is trust and mutual interest. This cannot be achieved by compulsion.''
 The CBI goes on to point out: 
''Learning representatives need the backing of employers. They cannot by themselves bring about a commitment to training within firms. 40 per cent. of learning representatives say they have a big impact in companies where the learning culture is strong. Only about 5 per cent. report that they have an impact in companies where the learning culture is weak.''

Mark Simmonds: Another of my concerns is that the compulsory nature of the clause may damage successful voluntary relationships between employers and representatives.

George Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, as usual. One is forced to consider the real reason for the clause, and it is to be found not in the creative accountancy of the partial regulatory impact assessment, which suggests that employers will benefit to the tune of £140 million as a result of gains in productivity, but in the cost of £23 million, which is also stated in the assessment.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman is trying to probe the real reason for the clause. Is he aware that in Airbags International in his constituency, the textile union has nine learning reps who have encouraged 100 employees to take up learning, mainly through ICT? If he visited that workplace and talked to those reps, he would hear from them and colleagues like them that the barriers facing union reps in the workplace, because they do not have the same rights as other union officials in the workplace, hamper them in carrying out their work effectively. That is the reason for the clause.

George Osborne: No one doubts that union learning representatives can do a good job when they work in partnership with an employer such as the employer in my constituency. We are talking about compelling a relationship that does not exist, forcing union learning representatives on a company that does not want them and perhaps cutting across existing training in the company.
 I return briefly to the figures that I quoted earlier to the Minister. It is predicted that the number of union learning representatives will increase by 700 per cent. as a result of these measures. That is a massive extension of union activity and power, and the real reason for the clause.

John Healey: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted when partnership arrangements work so well in many workplaces, but is he not concerned by the results of our evaluation? Eight out of 10 union learning reps say that they face a barrier in carrying out their learning rep activities, one in three do not get time to train for their role and one in two do not get paid time off to carry out those duties. Does he recognise that the clause will help in those circumstances and will boost training efforts in workplaces across the country?

George Osborne: I cannot agree that imposing union learning representatives on companies and imposing a form of training that may run counter to the training provided by the company is a good thing. It represents an extension of union activity and power. It is important at least to limit the numbers, and that is why I shall support the amendments.

Rob Marris: Even I am surprised by the muddle that the Opposition have got themselves into and the ignorance that they display about what goes on in workplaces on the employers' and the employees' or trade union side. It is not up to employers to sanction
 the appointment of union representatives. We live in a civilised society with free and independent trade unions, and it is up to those trade unions to decide who their officers are, including learning representatives. Those officers cannot be agreed through a statutory framework with the employer, because that would impinge on the freedom of trade unions.
 Some ridiculous examples have also been cited, such as the one given by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness of a five-employee firm that has five recognised trade unions. I defy him to come up with a single firm like that; to make such a suggestion is to be completely out of touch with reality. Recognised trade unions exist either where there is a benevolent employer or under the statutory framework, when more than half the employees are in the recognised trade union. The debate shows how out of touch the Opposition are. 
 Nor can one have, as the Opposition seem to suggest, a statutory framework that imposes union learning representatives on limited companies, sole traders and partnerships. That would, I believe, be unique in English law, which again shows how out of touch the Opposition are. As far as I am aware, in English company law there are only two sorts of officer. Under the Companies Acts, companies must have a director and a company secretary. They do not have to have any other kind of office holder. A sole trader is not obliged statutorily to have any kind of office holder, nor is a partnership, yet the Opposition seem to suggest that we should suddenly introduce and amend a statutory framework to say that every company shall have a director, a secretary and a learning representative agreed between the work force and the employer. That seems an extraordinary proposition.

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman has introduced the concept of muddle and has now compounded it, perhaps he could explain what on earth he is talking about. It does not seem to have anything to do with the amendment placing a limit on the number of learning reps or with the broader points made by the Minister or me.

Rob Marris: That again shows how adrift the Opposition are. I am speaking generally to the clause, as did the hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Minister and other hon. Members, with some indulgence from the Chair. I am talking about a clause that has been opposed through principled opposition, to use the words of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. That principled opposition seemed to be based on the fact that the clause would allow unions to impose learning representatives on employers. He seemed to request, in contradistinction to that, a statutory framework in which learning representatives would have to be agreed between the work force and the employer. I suggest that to put that in a statutory framework, whether in this clause or any other, would be completely out of touch with reality.
 I am glad to know that both sides support learning in general. The CBI brief for today says that the CBI supports the concept of learning representatives, their right to ''reasonable time off'' and ''normal protection'' for them. So as not to be accused of selective quoting, I will carry on to its next point, which is that 
''the proposed right for unions to appoint union learning representatives without the employer's agreement is a step in the wrong direction.''
 The CBI may think that, but I think that to provide otherwise statutorily would undermine free and independent trade unions. I am opposed to that as a democrat. 
 On learning generally, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that he could not conceive of a situation—I am paraphrasing, so he will correct me if I am wrong—in which an employer would pay one of his employees to learn something that would enable that employee to get another job down the road. 
Brian Cotter indicated assent.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman nods. If we look at the Ford Motor Company, a pretty successful one in the United Kingdom—

Philip Hammond: What?

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman says, ''What?'' but it is the Ford Motor Company world wide that has just announced losses, not the United Kingdom division.
 The Ford Motor Company introduced, about seven years ago—I stand to be corrected on the date—the equivalent of individual learning accounts. Shop floor workers doing semi-skilled and unskilled jobs could use them to study something like French, although that was unlikely to be of use to them on the shop floor at Ford.

Brian Cotter: In my company, I allowed an employee to get training as an electrician, which was not especially relevant, so I accept the point, but small companies do have problems. Unfortunately I shall be unable to be here in the early part of this afternoon, although my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) will be, so I beg your indulgence, Mr. Amess, if I seem to be summing up the end of the debate in an intervention. Very small companies can have problems with people but, on the other hand, a certain reasonableness is often applied, as I applied it in my company.

Ian Pearson: On a point of order, Mr. Amess. During the past hour and a half we have had a wide debate, of which more than an hour has been on the general principles behind the clause. That has been helpful, and with your usual sagacity you have allowed it to be in order. Will you inform the Chairman of this afternoon's sitting that there has been a substantial debate and that he can bear that in mind when deciding whether to allow a stand part debate on the clause?

David Amess: I have been taking advice on the matter. It is clear that hon. Members have decided to have a general debate now. Certainly, the person who
 will take over from me this afternoon will be fully informed of these proceedings.

Rob Marris: Thank you, Mr. Amess. I am grateful for your latitude this morning, and, conscious of the time, will wrap up my remarks.
 I refer hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, to clause 43(2), where new section 168A(2) specifies the purposes for which paid time off will be allowed. Turning to new section 168A(8), to which I referred earlier, I echo the Minister's remarks. Time off must be 
''reasonable in all the circumstances''.
 The example of five learning representatives in a five-employee firm, each in a separate recognised trade union is ridiculous, and I do not believe that any such place exists.

Mark Simmonds: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rob Marris: No, because I am about to finish my remarks.

Mark Simmonds: That is very unfair.

David Amess: Order.

Rob Marris: I shall try to finish quickly so that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness has one minute to make his point, if the Chairman allows him. The phrase
''reasonable in all the circumstances''
 would be interpreted by an employment tribunal accordingly.

Brian Cotter: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Amess, because I have a problem this afternoon.
 The Minister mentioned people knowing their rights. I would like to have said more, but we in our party have a clear view, and I do not subscribe to some of the conspiracy theory views of Conservative Members. However, some points need to be rehearsed. Our party believes in training and has shown that clearly over a long period of time. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk will make more points later. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.